The impact of the performance measurement system on the organizational performance of the public sector in a transition economy: Is public accountability a missing link?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Theoretical model.

Table 1. Sample characteristics

Measure	Item	Percentage
Job position	Senior manager	54.7
	Chief accountant	29.4
	Accountant	8.9
	Mid- and low-level managers	7.0
Work experience	Under 3 years	0.0
	From 3 to 5 years	22.4
	From 6 to 10 years	32.7
	Over 10 years	44.9
Type of organization	Administrative agencies	43.9
	Public service units	53.3
	Other socio-political organizations	2.8
Organizational field	Administration	33.2
	Education sector	43.4
	Health sector	12.3
	Other sectors	11.1
Competition	Yes	30.8
	No	69.2
Age	Mean (SD) min/max	27.69 (16.39) 4/98
Employees in organization	Mean (SD) min/max	79.95 (160.62) 3/1,500

Note: N, Total number of respondents (N = 214).

Table 2. Scale items and latent variable evaluation

Latent variables	Mean	Std. Deviation	Outer loading	T-test
Performance measurement system(CB = 0.84; CR = 0.88; AVE = 0.60)
1. My organization has performance measures that indicate the number of products or services provided	3.73	0.72	0.83	24.83
2. My organization has performance measures that indicate the operating efficiency	3.51	0.77	0.74	12.51
3. My organization has performance measures that indicate customer satisfaction	3.45	0.87	0.70	11.71
4. My organization has performance measures that indicate the product or service quality	3.97	0.68	0.77	23.05
5. My organization has performance measures that indicate the outcome effects	3.86	0.69	0.83	31.52
Public accountability (CB = 0.90; CR = 0.92; AVE = 0.59)
1. To determine if the organization has operated in the best interest of the community	3.78	0.70	0.78	21.62
2. To determine if the organization has conducted its operations effectively	3.80	0.62	0.87	27.02
3. To determine if the organization has conducted its operations efficiently	3.84	0.67	0.76	19.66
4. To decide if resources used as intended	3.76	0.74	0.79	24.03
5. To determine effect of current operations on future generations	3.55	0.77	0.75	18.37
6. To determine if public money used appropriately	3.80	0.74	0.80	22.04
7. To determine the effect of current operations on future funding	3.63	0.74	0.75	16.42
8. To make representations for funding	3.86	0.68	0.63	8.65
Organizational performance(CB = 0.89; CR = 0.92; AVE = 0.61)
1. The quantity or amount of work produced	4.00	0.72	0.70	16.66
2. The quality or accuracy of work produced	3.99	0.74	0.80	32.86
3. The number of innovations or new ideas by the unit	3.35	0.82	0.69	16.75
4. Reputation of “work excellence”	3.71	0.76	0.72	17.28
5. Attainment of unit production or service goals	3.98	0.73	0.86	44.21
6. Efficiency of unit operations	3.99	0.74	0.88	59.28
7. Morale of unit personnel	4.10	0.76	0.79	24.55

Notes: CB: Cronbach’s Alpha; CR: Composite reliability; AVE: Average variance extracted.

Table 3. Construct means, standard deviations, and correlations

Variables	Performance measurement system	Public accountability	Performance
Performance measurement system	0.78
Public accountability	0.67**	0.77
	0.74
Performance	0.37**	0.48**	0.78
	0.40	0.52
Mean	3.70	3.75	3.87
Standard deviation	0.75	0.71	0.75

Notes: First value = Correlation between variables (off diagonal); Second value (italic) = HTMT ratio; Square root of AVE (bold diagonal); **: Correlation is significant at the 1% level (two-tailed t-test).

Table 4. Hypothesis testing results

Hypothesis	Dependent variable	Public accountability		Performance
		β	t-value	β	t-value
Direct effects
H1	PMS			0.081	1.029
H2	PMS	0.667	15.739***
H3	Public accountability			0.403	4.941***
Control variable	Competition			−0.071	1.116
	Organizational age			0.116	1.989*
Indirect effects
H4	PMS—> Public accountability—> Performance: β = 0.269, t-value = 4.460***
Adjusted R^2		0.44		0.23

Notes: ***; *: Correlation is significant at the 1% and 10% level respectively (two-tailed t-test). N = 214. Results based on bootstrapping with 3,000 generated samples. PMS = Performance measurement system; Competition (dummy; 1 = Other organizations deliver similar products or services, and the organization is in competition with them; 0 = The organization is not in competition with other organizations).

Table 5. The f² effect size value of all endogenous constructs

Constructs	Public accountability	Organizational performance
Performance measurement system	0.803***	0.005
Public accountability		0.119**
Competition		0.007
Age		0.017

Notes: ***: large f² effect size; **: medium f² effect size.